About | Portfolio | Backup | Archives | PayPal Tip Jar | Amazon Tip Jar | Shop@Amazon
Advertising


Search BillHobbs.com
Stats, Etc.


TTLB Ecosystem Stats
Powered by FeedBurner


« Polls | Main | New Iraqi President: Saddam 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' »

June 21, 2004

Because I Could

I've taken the liberty of reproducing Maureen Dowd's latest New York Times column here, and adding a few helpful hyperlinks to help Ms. Dowd make her points more effectively.

Because They Could
By Maureen Dowd

In his "60 Minutes" interview, Bill Clinton calls his intern idyll "a terrible moral error," illuminating "the darkest part of his inner life." Not to mention the hardest part on his back since, astonishingly, he says he spent months sleeping on the couch. (Was the Lincoln bedroom always occupied by donors?)

"I did something for the worst possible reason," he told Dan Rather about his march of folly with Monica. "Just because I could. I think that's just about the most morally indefensible reason anybody could have for doing anything."

Just because he could. What a world of meaning is packed into that simple phrase. His "could" reflects a selfish "Who's gonna stop me?" power move, stemming from a droit du seigneur attitude, as opposed to "should," signifying obligation, or "must," indicating compulsion.

The former president engaged in a relationship of choice, not necessity.

As a friend of mine explains: "It's a guy thing. We're not likely to get up off the couch if we don't have to. We might cheat with a chick who just happens to be there if we feel we could get away with it."

In his memoirs, Mr. Clinton complains about Republican droit du seigneur, writing that impeachment was driven neither by "morality" nor "the rule of law" but, as Newt Gingrich said: "Because we can."

The Clinton alpha instinct on Monica, fueled by a heady cocktail of testosterone and opportunism, was the same one that led W. into his march of folly with Iraq. After 9/11, the president, vice president and secretary of defense wanted to go to the Middle East and knock the stuffing out of somebody bad - because it would feel good, because it would put our enemies on notice, and because it would make the president look strong.

The folks at 1600 Pennsylvania didn't have Osama's address. They couldn't go after Iran or North Korea because those countries could defend themselves and retaliate, maybe with nukes. They couldn't invade Pakistan or Saudi Arabia because they're our "allies." But the Bush team knew that it wouldn't be hard to get rid of the second-rate dictator and romance novelist who posed no real threat.

They went after Saddam just because they could. Last week, the 9/11 commission debunked the White House attempt to suggest an axis of evil between Saddam and Osama.

Like Mr. Clinton, the president engaged in an enterprise of choice, not necessity. John Kerry's biggest applause line now is: "The United States should never go to war because we want to. We should only go to war because we have to."

Huffing and puffing Dick Cheney comes across as barking mad when he keeps lassoing Saddam and Al Qaeda. Tricky Dick may actually believe in his concocted connection, but he must also realize that the administration can't lose the terrorist-linkage argument for war, having already lost the W.M.D. argument .

If our leaders didn't lead us there, why did 69 percent of Americans, in a Washington Post poll last September, believe that Saddam was involved in the attacks? And a University of Maryland study last October showed that 80 percent of those who mostly watched Fox believed at least one of three misconceptions: that W.M.D. had been found; that Al Qaeda and Iraq were tied; or that the world had approved of U.S. intervention in Iraq.

Osama, suffering from what one C.I.A. shrink termed "a narcissistic explosion," also struck America because he could. It was a jihad of choice, not necessity.

Thursday's 9/11 commission report cited the dissent among Al Qaeda leaders who were worried about Pakistan's reaction or U.S. retaliation. Osama overruled the doubters, arguing that it would reap a bonanza in Al Qaeda fund-raising and recruiting.

So far, partly because of the Bush crowd's solipsistic fixation on Saddam, Osama has gotten away with his heinous power play - and reaped a bonanza in recruiting.

Mr. Clinton, though he was vilified by the right, tittered at by the world and dolled up in pink-and-black suede shoes as a toddler by his mom, is selling a zillion books.

As Republicans keep saying, with fingers crossed, W. has stayed even with John Kerry despite the litany on Iraq, terrorism and domestic affairs that has turned out quite differently than promised.

But one thing you can say for Bill Clinton: His "Who's gonna stop me?" Oval Office power surge produced a much lower body count.

Posted in War on Terror | Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com
Comments

My eldest daughter can outhink and outwrite Dowd. But she is 6, so no surprise there.

Amazing that the The Greatest Newspaper In The World (by its own admission) lets this crap go on, week after week, cheerfully unchecked.

I wrote for my school newspaper in college: the editors there exercised more control than the editors of the NYT exercise over Dowd.

Posted by: Rick The Lawyer at June 21, 2004 11:43 AM

I can't conceive of a more efficient way method of "fisking" than what you did here, Mr. Hobbs.
Shining light on oft-employed lies and tired canards by linking them directly to the truth, instead of yet another point-by-point correction... should we coin a new term: "hobbsing"?

Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative at June 21, 2004 11:45 AM

Awesome debunking of Holier-Than-Dowd.

Well done.

Posted by: Matt at June 21, 2004 11:47 AM

Is thought required to write NY Times opinion pieces or do they ask that you leave thought at the door?

Posted by: addison at June 21, 2004 11:51 AM

Hey, Dowd's Miss Thing in liberal circles. Reasoned writing is not a prerequisite. She's in the NYT talking trash about conservatives. That's the prerequisite.

Posted by: La Shawn Barber at June 21, 2004 11:58 AM

Thanks very much. Great job.

Do you think the Gonzo Lady will post this on its website if you send it in as a letter to the editor? My guess would be that the GL lacks the guts/integrity/decency to do so.

Max

Posted by: max at June 21, 2004 11:58 AM

no they ask you to leave the "truth" at the door - thought is fine, since the thinking of those at the Times is what got them their job in the first place.

Posted by: jacksback at June 21, 2004 12:00 PM

I think what have here is a Hobbsing, not a Fisking.

Posted by: Phil Massey at June 21, 2004 12:00 PM

I'd call it Hobbeling. Better than fisking because you don't have to have a smug "hey look, I kicked your ass" attitude.

Posted by: Sharp as a Marble at June 21, 2004 12:21 PM

"But one thing you can say for Bill Clinton: His 'Who's gonna stop me?' Oval Office power surge produced a much lower body count."

Well, no. There are 3,000 American bodies that can be laid directly at his failure to take action after the many terrorist acts committed on his watch.

Posted by: Ken Summers at June 21, 2004 12:21 PM

Maureen Dowd and the New York Times are perfect for each other, a true match made in heaven. I hope she never leaves. If the Times only hired Robert Fisk or perhaps John Pilger, I would laugh with glee. May they all dance arm-in-arm into the sunset: the perfect union of the insipid the fraudulent and the lost.

Posted by: Sergio at June 21, 2004 12:23 PM

Oh my, this was brilliant! Thank you.

Posted by: Debbie Eberts at June 21, 2004 12:26 PM

If she keeps this up, history will record Maureen Dowd as the "Tokyo Rose of Terriorism".

Posted by: lstaud at June 21, 2004 12:30 PM

Very nice. Like hypertext fiction, only instead of exploring various avenues for shaping hermeneutic engagement with a text (through three-dimensional Deleuzean modalities and interconnected, spatio-temporal (de/re)constructions), Maureen Dowd is a simpering puffpuddler.

Posted by: Jeff G at June 21, 2004 12:37 PM

Drat. I was going to say that, Jeff.

Posted by: allintern/blogjunkie at June 21, 2004 01:08 PM

How many times do I have to tell people? The NY Times may not be what it once was, but it's still the Times. Do you think they'd actually give prime op-ed space to a flibbertigibbet, a caricature of the "woman writer?"

The only possible conclusion is that "Maureen Dowd" (or as we fans call her, "MoDo") is a practical joke played on the readership by the Times editorial board.

Posted by: Alex Bensky at June 21, 2004 01:10 PM

I pity poor MoDo sitting home all alone sticking pins in her Catherine Zeta-Jones doll. How very sad.

Posted by: cptham at June 21, 2004 01:20 PM

Hey, in addition to everything else, she seems to have conveniently forgotton that the President's reaction to 9/11 wasn't to go after Saddam, it was to topple those who harbored the Al-Queda network, the Taliban in Afghanistan. But then that would have blown apart her "clever" comparison, wouldn't it?

Posted by: Marc at June 21, 2004 01:24 PM

Beat them over the head with hyperlinks. Brilliant!

Posted by: 29 at June 21, 2004 01:37 PM

My local newspaper, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, has succumbed to reader demand and is now running Mo-Do's tripe on the Sunday Op-Ed page. Seeing that Sarasota Co. is about 70% Republican, I'm beginning to wonder just who those readers are.

I'm going to send a copy of this page (links included, of course) to the Op-Ed editor for comment. Let's see what happens.

Posted by: Hatcher at June 21, 2004 02:12 PM

"But one thing you can say for Bill Clinton: His "Who's gonna stop me?" Oval Office power surge produced a much lower body count."

I assume Dowd chose to ignore the estimates of 100,000 to 500,000 Iraqi children who died from malnutrition and disease as a result of the UN embargo while Clinton was in office...

Posted by: bluesky2000 at June 21, 2004 02:14 PM


We can trace our right to free speech and free press to a court case that Alexander Hamilton too on. In this case a printer of a newspaper was printing the truth about the goings on in New York, for which he was arrested and imprisoned.

Hamilton took the case and won.

Who is more at risk today in a court of law, Mr. Hobbs for linking the truth, or Ms. Dowd for toying with the truth for her own reasons?

I don't know. Wish I did.

Posted by: Lynn Carrier at June 21, 2004 02:35 PM

Great fisking innovation! Hyperlinks w/o commentary -- excellent and very effective.

Posted by: mountb at June 21, 2004 02:53 PM

Ms. Dowd should go on a speaking tour and explain how she has conquered the age-old fear of "being found out". They say everyone has a mortal fear of being discovered as a fraud, based on deep-seated insecurity issues that even the most outgoing among us suffer from, to varying degress.

Ms. Dowd has no such fear, and the straightforwardness and honesty which she extrudes as she throws herself into every piece of claptrap passing as an opinion is actually refreshing in it's own way.

Rock bottom?....no such thing eh, Ms Dowd?

Posted by: James at June 21, 2004 02:58 PM

Core's Law of Old Media: We see the Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode partly because America's liberals believe their own lying propaganda.

Posted by: ELC at June 21, 2004 03:14 PM

It's disturbingly fun when you read such things on the tar baby of a blog thread. But when you read Dowd and Ivins and Clift, it's gut wrenching because you know folks are read'n and believe'n. No, no, it's not a gender thing. There are too many level headed female columnists out there. It's the bell curve, I guess. The more you invite to the party, the more dingbats you have to put up with.

Posted by: RD at June 21, 2004 03:14 PM

Very nicely done. I'm gonna link to it as soon as I finish this comment.

I love it when the Left get's hoisted - regardless of ownership of petard.

I agree with Sharp as a Marble above: Hobbled has a nice ring to it.

Posted by: J at TAotB at June 21, 2004 03:39 PM

Brilliant! Brilliant and well done! I'm going to link to it. With my level of traffic it won't increase your readership any, but it'll make me feel good!

Posted by: Tom Bowler at June 21, 2004 05:37 PM

Maureen, oxycontin and cheap gin do not constitute a good breakfast.

No matter what Molly Ivans says.

N. O'Brain
Imperial Minister for Useless Information

Posted by: N. O'Brain at June 21, 2004 05:41 PM

Q. Why did MoDo write such a silly column?

A. "Just because she could."

Q. Why did the NYTimes editor allow her column to be printed?

A. "A selfish 'Who's gonna stop me?' power move".

Q. It's easy to understand why jejune Monica subjected herself to pedophile, self-indulgent Clinton, but why do some alleged adults subject themselves to this jejune self-indulgent columnist? And to the self-indulgent NYTimes?

A. Because they're insecure & it's prescribed in "Get Rid of Bush For Dummies!"

TomCom

Posted by: TomCom at June 21, 2004 06:59 PM

Congratulations. Please do more of this. I have just removed BBC from my favourites, and added you.

MarkL
Canberra

Posted by: MarkL at June 21, 2004 08:35 PM

Mr. Clinton a pedophile? That's a new one, but perhaps I've missed it before. I was under the impression that Ms. Lewinsky was a consenting adult. That was how she portrayed it to Linda Tripp.

Mr. Clinton succumbed to opportunity and his own weakness, no less than many others in public and private life have done. Some of them we know about and some we don't. In fact, we would probably be surprised at how many times this has been played out by people we revere in political life, and not only with those of the opposite sex.

I know several men now who are married to women younger than their daughters, and who live in glass houses.

Think of how different things would be if Monica weren't such a bigmouth.

As for Bush, et al, I believe that history will be very unkind to them for their succumbing to their weaknesses and delusions.

Posted by: SemiPundit at June 21, 2004 10:09 PM

Semipundit,

That's the weakest, lamest defense of Clinton I've seen in 12 years. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a Republican posing as a Democrat. Yep, Clinton's problems can all be laid at the size of Monica's mouth. Oh well, Bush by 6 points in November.

Posted by: Lance at June 21, 2004 11:10 PM

I addressed the suggestion that Mr. Clinton is a pedophile. I suppose it's a reasonable assumption, considering that Ms. Lewinsky was young and foolish, demure, vulnerable, and had never engaged in such escapades before.

Actually, at the time, I had hoped that Mr. Clinton would resign, giving Mr. Gore the balance of his term and the eligibility to run for two more on his own. In retrospect, I think most Democrats agree that would have been better for the party. Mr. Clinton put the cost of the assault on his presidency at $70 million.

My brother and I were talking about it at the time the impeachment was in process. A Vietnam veteran with real medals, he put it this way: "We could have saved $50 million if they had just made Clinton write one thousand times, "I will not have sex with a big-mouthed whore."

Posted by: SemiPundit at June 21, 2004 11:35 PM

Why does she write such drivel?

Because she can.

Posted by: thirdfinger at June 22, 2004 05:32 AM

Semi-

You were right to call TomCom on his labelling of Clinton as a pedophile. Clinton is actually a rapist. According to feminist theory - power disparity between individuals makes "consent" a moot point. And what greater power disparity could there be than between president of the most powerful nation on earth and some 22yr old intern? This makes it especially egregious. Oh wait -- nevermind. I forgot that the feminist establishment suspended that particular rule for old Bubba. Something about his being of the correct political persuasion...

Posted by: JohnPV at June 22, 2004 08:59 AM

This article is a great example of Dowd's penchant for using the words of a criminal to attack our President. She's quite tacky, really. Sick.

Posted by: Jen at June 30, 2004 06:09 PM
Post a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!









Remember personal info?






Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):




back to top
Advertising

Video
Palin Acceptance Speech

McCain Acceptance Speech

I Also Blog At...
button-fcs-blog.gif
Archives
Blogroll